There's more to this, though, I think. We're going to be hearing a lot more about how "websites don't need to be made any more" and how it's not the presence of individuals on the web that really adds value.

There are very rich and very powerful forces that would like the Internet to become nothing but a commercial vehicle for the largest corporations. We're going to hear about how there's really no value in somebody making "another blog" and we're going to hear a lot of aspersions cast upon people who put up content without it being connected to business. Oh, certain big blogs are OK, because they drive eyeballs, carry advertisement and push opinions. Gizmodo: good. - Wired.com: good - Wikileaks: very bad

There's more to this, though, I think. We're going to be hearing a lot more about how "websites don't need to be made any more" and how it's not the presence of individuals on the web that really adds value.

There are very rich and very powerful forces that would like the Internet to become nothing but a commercial vehicle for the largest corporations. We're going to hear about how there's really no value in somebody making "another blog" and we're going to hear a lot of aspersions cast upon people who put up content without it being connected to business. Oh, certain big blogs are OK, because they drive eyeballs, carry advertisement and push opinions. Gizmodo: good. - Wired.com: good - Wikileaks: very bad

That's easily countered. You just come back with 8 articles that don't need to be written anymore.

You nailed it, the individual and the individual's opinion, perspective, is the real gold always has been, always will be. The fact that corporations will NEVER be able to totally control individuals is their problem.

Of course the "standard" web tools are limited for selfish, proprietary and wasted attempts at controlling the individual thus they fail, continue to fail, will always fail.

They've already taken down geocities, lycos, angelfire, whatever. People used to make sites and put their own content up. Today they don't seem to anymore, and I think the web is poorer for it. Luckily, I had recursively downloaded a couple of sites that had valuable info for myself, and archive.org has some, but the shift on all fronts (ditto usenet or forums) is towards fewer and bigger sites run by corporations instead of more, smaller sites run by individuals.

but can it utilize revolutionary interfaces to productize cross-media e-services to mesh extensible niches which helps to incubate end-to-end communities and to drive sticky functionalities while scaling collaborative systems in an effort to monetize open-source convergence?

but can it utilize revolutionary interfaces to productize cross-media e-services to mesh extensible niches which helps to incubate end-to-end communities and to drive sticky functionalities while scaling collaborative systems in an effort to monetize open-source convergence?

We are all about transitioning value-added web-readiness here.

A challenge!

My new mission is to use each and every word in that post, during a meeting, before next friday.

Really? In the 1980s I could call up any number of virtual servers on the fly for a few dollars per month?

Cloud computing in the sense of buying time on a time-sharing computer system has been around since the mainframe days. Cloud computing in the sense of relying on an application service provider has also been around since the mainframe days.

Does anyone else have this problem with/., when you push the 'reply' it shows the page with the text area that is one quarter of the width of the page? I am too lazy to check the CSS, but is this happening for everyone here right now, or is it settings dependent and on case by case basis?/. - we don't really need more/. One is enough for everyone.

I think it's just a problem with the CSS on Idle. If you remove "idle." from the URL it uses the default CSS, and everything looks normal again. Almost annoying enough to see if there's a Greasemonkey script to replace the Idle CSS with normal CSS on the fly.

I wish I could mod you +6. Your comment was one of the most informative comments I've seen. I can now click on low score comments without having to go to a separate page, then hitting the back button to be put at the top of the page wondering where I was at. I just figured it was the/. way to further discourage reading idle topics.

While half the sites that require registration, don't actually have much of a valid reason for people to register, save for the owner hoping to get your email address for their mailing list, I would still rather create a unique logon than use facebook.

I don't like facebook, myspace, aol, etc. I have accounts, technically, but they leave a bad taste in my mouth.

You ever try to use a forum that didn't require registration? Within 24 hours, 95% of the posts are spam. While I don't LIKE keeping up with lots of logins for various forums, at this point they're a necessary evil.

I have a Launchpad account, which I use as my identifier on a few sites that take OpenID. But one problem in practice with OpenID is that a lot of web sites are OpenID providers (sites that issue identifiers to users) but not as many are relying parties (sites that accept other providers' identifiers). And what prevents a spammer from setting up an OpenID provider and generating an unbounded number of plausible identities?

You ever try to use a forum that didn't require registration? Within 24 hours, 95% of the posts are spam. While I don't LIKE keeping up with lots of logins for various forums, at this point they're a necessary evil.

Not true my forum lasted almost 6 months before getting it's first spam, also it's 10,000th spam, both on the same day.

If you're posting, I can see forcing a person to make an account. But a lot of forums these days want you to register to even view the posts. It's obnoxious, especially when you're only going there because someone linked to a post on it that solves some problem you have. Some tech support sites require you to set up an account before you can search their FAQ too, which is super obnoxious.

Well there's this little problem, see. I am all for the concept of a cross-site single sign on solution that works everywhere. The problem is I'm not okay with "Facebook Connect", which is run by an abusive privacy intruding company with no respect for its users.

Until you find another alternative, we're stuck with the current system.

Right, I don't have a problem with OpenID. But I see tons of sites pimping the idea that I should log in with my Facebook credentials and relatively few saying "Log in here with OpenID!". A standard that very few people use yet isn't relevant.

I agree with most of them, but #4 (requiring users to register) is pretty much absolutely essential for a web site to have "stickiness": keeping the user coming back for more. How is a website supposed to customize itself to a specific user's tastes without having users first register?

your stickyness only makes me give you a fake info and post it to bugmenot. Sticky websites are failures. I typically will find needed info in a "sticky" site and will copy and paste it onto another forum that is not sticky. Yes I steal your content and put it elsewhere BECAUSE of your slimeball login required.

Well, I don't really see where your aggressive-sounding post is coming from, since I don't personally run any websites, it was just a casual observation.
Just to point out though, you would post a website's content on another website's forum, a forum that would probably require registration anyway?

So there is no need to make signup because Facebook connect can do it.No need for a another status update side because Facebook can do it.No need for a "next facebook" because Facebook can do it.Wrong!

How about no? Just stop with this facebook madness. Screw them.
I'm sick and tired of facebook this and facebook that. Facebook login here and facebook widget of people liking the stupid page i'm on. GRRRRRRRR.
I've put facebook.com^ in my damn adblock filter because of those people!

Website that make you log in to even view things.. WTF is that? A members only club that anyone can be a part of? You know how many of those sites have bugmenot logins? your site is a failure, stop being a power freak, You wont get my real email address anyways...

A Website with those damned popups when you roll over a word... OMFG! I want to physically harm the guy that runs that site that has those.

Sound of ANY KIND.. a pop up of your ugly face talking to me in flash? I dont think so. It's not neat, its not cool. It's dumb and makes me want to never go to your site again.

Amen, loading up a story or a blog, listening to music and all of the sudden some damn advert screaming at me, the worst ones are the ones in a little corner of the screen. If they pop up at least I know where they are...

As for the damn popups on the words...I have invented countless methods of torture for sites that propegate that...

Word of advice to advertizers, if you are advertizing using any of the above methods...you are LOSING BUSINESS! Never have I heard someone go...man I would never have heard

It'd be great if there was a way to "purge" useless sites from the web...of course that's a pretty broad description there, perhaps purge "sites that dot he same thing as other sites but not as well" hmm...

What if some people like the other site that you, and perhaps even a majority of people, don't like/think it doesn't do as good a job?

For example: Facebook. A lot of people like Facebook. What if a newcomer came along that was better but "didn't do it as well" (read: it doesn't have FarmVille!!!!)... it comes up for a purge vote and 70% (those that use Farmville) vote that it's useless, 25% don't care, and 5% (Slashdot users) think it's better because of privacy reasons and because it is opensource.

The reason we have too many of these websites is quite simple - the existing versions suck. For example Facebook steals information/privacy (even info they previously contracted as never being given out). Dating web sites work great - for model types. But for the rest of us they suck.

I think you missed the point. He's saying there is not a need for more dating sites. I was reading the other day that there is one for Apple fans. Why do we need a dating site that caters to Apple fans? Couldn't one just list it in the "looking for" box of plentyofish, Yahoo! Singles, Craigs List, or any one of the many other dating sites that already exist? When I was looking through the dating sites, I would have preferred fewer sites so I know where to look rather than having to register for 20 site

Not necessarily. As usual our intrepid editorial staff did a total horseshit job of summarizing, describing, and likely reading, the article. The article is about webpages that don't need to be remade anymore in truth. It largely talks about all the craptacular new social networking sites that are all trying to copy each other for no good reason. So while slashdot doesn't have much of a reason to exist anymore, it isn't a new site either so it doesn't really apply.

Yes, you nailed the premise of this item exactly, directly relating the linked article to how seeing tired old cliches like posting, "Isn't this supposed to be a news site?" in every Idle post is so tedious.

Good job, man, I hope others catch your ironic agreement with the post!